Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sutopia]

there are only two "pure freight"in vanilla game atm: buffalo and atlas
However, Atlas as capital got only 6 burn on map which is quite annoying if you try to maintain burn 9 for swift operations. Buffalo got only 300 cargo space which I can just use some larger cruisers instead.
We got cruiser-class fuel ships and man ships, why can't we get a cruiser-class freight?
I'd say 8 burn and 600 to 700 cargo space is quite acceptable.

[Zibywan]

I could see a variant of the Venture working really well for this. Have a Venture(C) that has no flight deck but 300-400 extra cargo space for a total of 800-900. With aug-engines, and a tug it makes the 9 burn cut you're asking for.

[Sutopia]

when you need a tug to make it 9 burn I'd take 2 buffalo instead ...
or just any 2 cruiser with like 400+ cargo space

[Sy]

Tarsus is another pure freighter in vanilla, and Hermes is sort of a shuttle sized freighter. but i agree, i'd absolutely love to see a cruiser sized freighter in vanilla!

we're also completely lacking a military freighter, meaning a bit more defense and weaponry, and without the civilian sensor package (Buffalo (A) has the later, at least). i don't mean a combat freighter hbyrid similar to Wayfarer or Mule, which are supposed to be deployed in battle, but rather a dedicated transport ship that just isn't pretty much free loot if forced into a pursuit-battle.

with the amount of piracy and near-open faction wars in the sector, i'd think the demand for a sort of blockade-runner transport would be quite high.

[Wyvern]

I'd actually suggest the Apogee for a cruiser-scale freighter; it's pretty much my go-to ship for "This is what a combat freighter should be".

[Sy]

using an Apogee purely for cargo capacity is a massive waste of resources, though. if you want a transport, Buffalo (A) or Atlas are pretty much the two vanilla ones worth using. but i agree that it makes a nice combat freigther.

[Linnis]

I could see a variant of the Venture working really well for this. Have a Venture(C) that has no flight deck but 300-400 extra cargo space for a total of 800-900. With aug-engines, and a tug it makes the 9 burn cut you're asking for.

would make sense for the venture to have no side mounts and missiles for cargo. Because the energy slot and hangar is used for mining and mining pods right?

[Schwartz]

Tbh, a true military freighter would have very thick armour, wouldn't be cheap and would possibly not have any weapons on it at all. At least when I look at real-world counterparts, meager defenses are as good as it gets. Think Valkyrie. So that would make the Tarsus the closest thing to a military freighter. "...presumably built to be able to supply front line fleets..."

And yeah, a dedicated cruiser would be cool. Ideally with an efficiency somewhere between the Buffalo and the Atlas. Nothing too brawny.

[Sy]

strong defenses would be most important, yeah. but in SS that also includes at least good point defense coverage, against missiles and bomber strikes. being able to mount a Salamander or two would also help a lot against small number of frigates, for relatively little space / ordnance points.

[Aeson]

We got cruiser-class fuel ships

Given that the Dram has a fuel capacity exceeding that of any cruiser in the unmodded game, I would suggest that there are no cruiser-scale tankers in the unmodded game. The Phaeton is destroyer-scale and the Prometheus is capital-scale.

As far as the suggestion of adding a cruiser-scale freighter goes, why? There's no real need for one, what with cruiser warships being surprisingly fuel-efficient cargo carriers (excluding the cruisers, the mode cargo-carrying fuel efficiency of dedicated warships is 30 cargo*ly/fuel, the average is ~35, and the maximum is 50; no cruiser gets less than 50 cargo*ly/fuel, Apogees are nominally as good as Buffaloes and Tarsuses at 150 cargo*ly/fuel, and Ventures are nominally second only to Atlases at 167 cargo*ly/fuel).

with the amount of piracy and near-open faction wars in the sector, i'd think the demand for a sort of blockade-runner transport would be quite high.

Hounds, Cerberi, and Wayfarers are already more or less ideal blockade runners. They have a high enough burn level that it's difficult for most fleets to intercept them (only Tempests have sufficiently high burn levels to simply run down Hounds, Cerberi, and Wayfarers, assuming either everyone uses Augmented Engines or no one does), they're fast enough in combat that most things have a great deal of difficulty killing them if they decided to run (Hounds and Cerberi especially, because Hounds are tied with Tempests for the highest base speed and Cerberi have burn drives, but Wayfarers can also be made to be quite fast and are generally better combatants than either the Hound or the Cerberus), none of them have civilian-grade hulls and the associated sensor packages, and they're all reasonably competent freighters for their weight class.

If you want something the game labels as a freighter rather than a combat freighter which stands a reasonable chance of escaping if caught, I'd point you to the Tarsus, especially if built for speed. It has decent hull and armor strength, it has an in-combat burn drive, and it can have a base speed of 80 if given Augmented Engines. If there were an (A) variant, it'd be everything you asked for.

i don't mean a combat freighter hbyrid similar to Wayfarer or Mule, which are supposed to be deployed in battle

I don't get the feeling that the combat freighters are generally supposed to be deployed in battle. I get the feeling that the combat freighters are intended to be capable of being deployed in battle if the escorts need assistance, and are sometimes used unescorted because a group of combat freighters is in theory capable of defeating minor pirate attacks. A Mule offers about as much combat power as a single Lasher but costs nearly twice as much to deploy; Hounds and Cerberi are almost only useful for fire support without character skills to boost them. If you have proper warships, you'll deploy those instead of the combat freighters unless you really need the support.

Ideally with an efficiency somewhere between the Buffalo and the Atlas.

Depending on what kind of efficiency you're looking at, such a cruiser already exists. Ventures nominally move 167 units of cargo 1 lightyear on 1 unit of fuel to the 150 units of cargo that a Buffalo can move 1 lightyear on 1 unit of fuel or the 200 that an Atlas can move 1 lightyear on 1 unit of fuel, and the Venture's effective fuel efficiency in cargo*ly/fuel will not drop below the nominal fuel efficiency of the Buffalo until you reserve more than 50 units of the Venture's cargo.

[Sy]

Hounds, Cerberi, and Wayfarers are already more or less ideal blockade runners

yeah, and i do use a few Wayfarers with a Cerberus or two for their shielded holds in most new games. but those are early game options. good luck trying to ferry Atlas-levels of cargo with frigates. getting three or so cruisers would be a lot more reasonable.

If you want something the game labels as a freighter rather than a combat freighter which stands a reasonable chance of escaping if caught, I'd point you to the Tarsus, especially if built for speed. It has decent hull and armor strength, it has an in-combat burn drive, and it can have a base speed of 80 if given Augmented Engines. If there were an (A) variant, it'd be everything you asked for.

i do use Tarsus at times for those reasons, and i agree that it'd be nice to have an (A) variant. but with the 25-ships cap in vanilla, having access to a larger transport would still be useful for fleets that don't want to use Atlas due to their low burn speed, civilian sensor package and/or vulnerability if caught.

for the record, i'd be happy to see a capital military transport as well. i just think that if one is introduced, might as well make it a ship class that doesn't have any dedicated transports at all yet.

I don't get the feeling that the combat freighters are generally supposed to be deployed in battle.

i would agree, i generally only deploy them if i feel i have to. but the AI clearly disagrees. it treats Hounds, Mules, etc like any combat ship, both in deployment behaviour and in how they fight.

[Megas]

Base burn of 7 kills the Venture.  Venture and tug combo for burn 9 is effectively cargo of 250 (500 / 2).  The only time burn 8 is acceptable is with Atlas and tug combo, and only if player intends to attract (with transponder off) and slaughter every detachment that comes with a killer fleet of his own.  Chain-battling detachments in a completely hostile system with no storage base nearby will fill thousands of cargo quickly.

Cruiser-sized freighter would be nice.  Something between two Buffalo and a Atlas-and-tug combo.  Perhaps with capacity of about 600 to 750 cargo capacity, if it can get burn 9 without a tug.

[xenoargh]

Cruiser-sized Freighter with combat capabilities... well, yeah, the Apogee, which can carry cargo and survive a nuclear holocaust and kill way more than its weight in CR and DP.  Anything else?  Seriously?  No.

Burn of 7 means the Venture is worthless.  Not "marginal"- just junk.  Do not buy a Venture unless you feel sorry that its cool sprite isn't seen in the game enough.

Does the game need a "combat freighter" in the larger size classes?  Yes, it should have one; the Venture is supposed to be that ship, but, due to the inexplicable nerf to its Burn and other core stats, isn't; I guess it's not clear how important that stat is or what fleet the Venture is meant to roll with, because it's not a fleet that includes Capitals or other Cruisers, and not a fleet where it's just eye-candy on the Fleet screen.

The Atlas should have a less-efficient likeness that is beefy enough to be used in combat, sure; something very slow, very armored, but well-armed, that can snipe things and defend itself from missiles. 

The Atlas itself isn't sensible, given the violence of the SS universe, and should get a revamp; it's basically the definition of "ship I will shoot down every time I see it, if I'm fighting a Faction and shooting down an Atlas means the Faction lost an expensive vessel and a lot of cargo". 

If there's ever a real-deal connection between fleets being built with money, economies and cargoes, the Atlas is the low-hanging fruit and prime strategic target, basically, because if I defeat the escort fleet, the Atlas is always going to go down, whereas some of the other pure Freighters might, in theory, survive.

A Mule offers about as much combat power as a single Lasher

Not even close.

A Mule gets more kick out of ITU and it also has one of the very few Medium Energy mounts on a central turret with a halfway-decent arc, coupled with an efficient shield that's very effective when converted to Frontal.  It's a very capable combat ship against anything in the Destroyer class in late-game play, and groups of Mules can kill Capitals with surprising ease.  The efficiency of the Pulse Laser does it; they don't need missiles and they're very hard to take down with Tech buffs, Vents and level-10 Power Grid.

Lashers largely just eat space dust at that point in the game because of their terrible shield efficiency, slow speed and lower range bands.  I don't bother using them past early game any more.  They used to be decent combat sluggers, but somewhere along the way they got nerfed too hard.

[Schwartz]

Venture takes too many supplies and has a high minimum crew requirement. It's decent as a hybrid, but I'd want a dedicated cruiser-sized freighter. Something along the lines of 6 supplies/month (Atlas has only 10!), 800 cargo, skeleton crew 25, burn 8 and two small ballistic PD slots.

[xenoargh]

Yeah, I'd buy that, if I bought freighters at all; that's efficient enough that it could go into a fleet with a single Cruiser.  I never buy Buffaloes, Tarsi, etc., Venture is too slow, Atlas is even slower.; there is no sweet spot where I'm like, "yeah, freighter" vs. "just buy more combat ships".